Re: Removing SunOS/68k compatibility before 8.0
Frank Wille <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.ports.amiga |
|---|---|
| Organization | Privates Internet Ostwestfalen/Lippe e.V. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Swift Griggs wrote: > Since the VAS is independent of the PAS, shouldn't simply increasing > the size of the page table that tracks the virtual memory increase it's > upper limit? I'm guessing for some reason it's not that easy. I'm not sure. I haven't done anything with 68k MMUs in the last two decades. It wouldn't surprise me when there is some pmap init code which only creates the page tables for a limited address space, like 0x00000000 to 0x1fffffff. Otherwise all I know are the parameters in amiga/include/vmparam.h. I would probably move USRSTACK (currently at 0x1e000000), which defines the VM_MAX_ADDRESS, and then adapt the MAXDSIZ for a process accordingly. > I can't think of any reason why the 68k would limit you doing that at a > ISA or architectural level. The 68k is not problem. It can handle 4GB VM just fine. The problem for me is to find all required modifications in the source. > The > issue you mention about SunOS not being able use the MSB of a pointer, Forget that. At the first glance I noticed that the address space of a user process was limited to 32MB code and 224MB data, so I was guessing that no more than 256MB of virtual address space would ever be used. Which is wrong. The user stack ends at 0x1e000000. I didn't see any problem in the source with SunOS myself, to be honest. I just remember that Michael van Elst mentioned long ago on this list that SunOS compatibility is the reason for the limited virtual address space. > I do have a few 68k Macs, though. Currently the maximum data segment size for a mac68k user processes is limited to only 64MB. Maybe we can increase that too, if you like to test. > it's just that I've been working on learning 68k ASM all > year and studying the 68k in my spare time, so I'm curious and excited > about this topic. Most is C in NetBSD, but it is often required to know details about the CPU architecture. Good choice to play with 68k, BTW! I know no better CPU for having fun with assembler programming. :) -- Frank Wille